1. ANDREW BECK PSYC 792 MARCH 1, 2012 Multiple Resource Theory as a Computational Model

2. DIFFERENT RESOURCES TASK ANALYSIS SHELL CONFLICT MATRIX COMPUTATIONAL FORMULA TOTAL INTERFERENCE VALUES Components of the Computational Model

3. Different Types of Resources From Multiple Resource Theory

4. StageResourceAbbreviationExample PerceptionVisual-Spatial Visual-Ambient VS VA Estimating distances; lane keeping PerceptionVisual-Verbal Visual-Focal VV VF Reading traffic signs PerceptionAuditory-SpatialASAudio location PerceptionAuditory-VerbalAVListening to a message CognitionCognitive-SpatialCSMental rotation CognitionCognitive-VerbalCVRehearsing a phone number RespondingResponse-SpatialRSVarious manual activities RespondingResponse-VerbalRVSpeaking

5. DEMAND SCALARS DEMAND VECTORS Task Analysis Shell

6. Demand Scalars and Vectors Demand Vectors are sometimes referred to as a Resource Vector The Demand Vector is simply a collection of Demand Scalars for each individual task  A Demand Scalar is task-specific demand level for one resource  Example: Task A might have a demand level of 2 for the Auditory-Spatial component, while Task B might have a demand level of 0 for that same component Horrey & Wickens 2003

7. Demand Scalars and Vectors “Each task is coded in terms of its dependence on a given resource on an ordinal scale, depending on task characteristics and overall difficulty.” A value of 0 means that a specific task is not reliant on a specific resource at all.  Simply monitoring a computer screen will probably not involve a Response-Verbal component. A value of 1 means that a specific task demands some amount of a certain resource.  Driving on a straight stretch of highway with no traffic during the day might require some Visual-Ambient resources, but not too much. Horrey & Wickens 2003

8. Demand Scalars and Vectors As tasks become more complex, this value may increase to 2 or 3.  For most applications, a coding system of three levels (0, 1, 2) is adequate. Horrey & Wickens 2003

9. Demand Scalars and Vectors As a simplified example…  Keeping your car in the center of the lane on an uncluttered freeway during the day may require resources at the perceptual, cognitive and response levels.  Demand Scalars: 1, 1, 1  Demand Vector: 1-1-1  Total Demand Score: 3  However, driving on a freeway with lots of curves at night may demand different amounts of these same resources.  Demand Scalars: 2, 1, 2  Demand Vector: 2-1-2  Total Demand Score: 5 Horrey & Wickens 2003

10. Demand Scalars and Vectors Demand Vector TaskPerceptionCognitionResponseSum of Demanded Resources VAVFASAVCSCVRSRV Task A2220020210 Task B010030307 Demand Scalars for Task B

11. Demand Scalars and Vectors Demand Vector TaskPerceptionCognitionResponseSum of Demanded Resources VAVFASAVCSCVRSRV Task A2220020210 Task B010030307 Demand Vector for Task B

12. Conflict Matrix

13. An Example Conflict Matrix Task B Resources Task A Resources PerceptualCognitiveResponse VAVFASAVCSCVRSRV VA0.80.6 0.40.70.50.40.2 VF0.80.40.60.50.70.20.4 AS0.80.40.70.50.40.2 AV0.80.50.70.20.4 CS0.80.6 0.4 CV0.80.40.6 RS0.80.6 RV1.0 Wickens 2002

14. Conflict Matrix This is a matrix showing the amount of conflict between resource pairs. If two tasks cannot share a resource, the conflict value is 1.0  Two tasks both demanding a spoken response If two tasks can perfectly share a resource, the conflict value is 0 Wickens 2002

15. How to Derive the Values Within a Conflict Matrix Every channel pair has a baseline conflict value of 0.2, instead of 0  This is a “fundamental cost of concurrence.” Each added dimension of overlapping resources increases the conflict value by 0.2 Cognitive resources do not involve the Auditory- Visual modality distinction.  Therefore, their conflict with perceptual resources (which do have this modality distinction) is defined as an average value between sharing and separate modalities. Wickens 2002

16. How to Calculate CS and CV Conflict Values Task A Task B PerceptualCognitiveResponse VA/VSVF/VV ASAVCSCVRSRV VA0.80.6 0.40.70.50.40.2 Wickens 2002

17. How to Derive the Values Within a Conflict Matrix It may assumed that values along the negative diagonal would always have a value of 1.0 (i.e. conflict values between Task A RV and Task B RV), this is not always the case  Two manual responses may show high (0.8), but not impossible conflict  Voice responses cannot be shared and, thus, have a conflict value of 1.0 Wickens 2002

18. How to Derive the Values Within a Conflict Matrix Lastly, conflict values may be adjusted in certain circumstances to account for the physical separation of the two channels in question.  The conflict value on the Visual-Focal channel may be lowered if the two visual sources are physically close together, rather than far apart. Wickens 2002

19. DEMAND COMPONENT CONFLICT COMPONENT Computational Formula

20. Computational Formula Components The computational formula consists of two components: Demand Component  This component penalizes the pair of tasks for its total resource demand value Conflict Component  This component penalizes the pair of tasks according to the degree of conflict between resource pairs with non-zero conflict values. Wickens 2002

21. Demand Component To calculate this component  Take the average of the total resource demand value for each task, along all of the included resource components  Task A has a total resource demand value of 8 across 8 resource components 8/8 = 1  Task B has a total resource demand value of 7 across 8 resource components 7/8 =.88  Simply add these two values together for a each task pair  Demand Component for AB: 1 +.88 = 1.88 Wickens 2002

22. Conflict Component Using 2 tasks across two resource types…  0.8 + 0 + 0.3 + 0 = 2  0.8 + 0.3 + 0.3 + 1.0 = 2.4 Wickens 2002 Task A Task B VF (2)RS (0) VF(1)0.80.3 RS (1)0.31.0 Task A Task B VF (2)RS (1) VF(1)0.80.3 RS (1)0.31.0

23. Total Interference Value

24. The Total Interference Value is simply the Demand Component added to the Conflict Component for a given task combination. From the previous example: TaskDemand Component Conflict Component Total Interference Value AB1.8823.88

25. Total Interference Value The Total Interference Value for a task pair is a relative value, not an absolute value.

26. FROM WICKENS 2002 A Simplified Example

27. Components of the Computational Model Different Tasks Different Resources Demand Scalars Demand Vectors Conflict Matrix Computational Formula Total Interference Value

28. Outline of a Simple Experiment Only two resources will be considered  Perceptual cognitive (PC)  Response (R) Task A  A demanding monitoring task, with no response required Task B  A tracking task involving both perception and response Task C  A tracking task with a more complicated response than Task B Wickens 2002

29. Demand Scalars and Vectors TaskPerceptual Cognitive Response Total Demand Score Task A202 Task B112 Task C123

30. Simplified Conflict Matrix Perceptual CognitiveResponse Perceptual Cognitive.80.30 Response.301.0

31. Computational Formula TaskDemand ComponentConflict Component AA1 + 1 = 2 0.8 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0.8 BB1 + 1 = 2 0.8 + 1 + 0.3 + 0.3 = 2.4 CC1.5 + 1.5 = 3 0.8 + 1 + 0.3 + 0.3 = 2.4 AB1 + 1 = 2 0.8 + 0 + 0.3 + 0 = 1.1 AC1 + 1.5 = 2.5 0.8 + 0 + 0.3 + 0 = 1.1 BC1 + 1.5 = 2.5 0.8 + 1 + 0.3 + 0.3 = 2.4

32. Calculations of the Computational Formula for the Task Combination of AB Task A Task B PC (2)R (0) PC (1)0.80.3 R (1)0.31.0

33. Task A Task B PC (2)R (0) PC (1)0.80.3 R (1)0.31.0 Total Interference Value

34. End Results TaskDemand Component Conflict Component Total Interference Value AA1 + 1 = 2 0.8 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0.82.8 BB1 + 1 = 2 0.8 + 1 + 0.3 + 0.3 = 2.44.4 CC1.5 + 1.5 = 3 0.8 + 1 + 0.3 + 0.3 = 2.45.4 AB1 + 1 = 2 0.8 + 0 + 0.3 + 0 = 1.13.1 AC1 + 1.5 = 2.5 0.8 + 0 + 0.3 + 0 = 1.13.6 BC1 + 1.5 = 2.5 0.8 + 1 + 0.3 + 0.3 = 2.44.9

35. References Horrey, W.J. & Wickens, C.D. (2003). Multiple resource modeling of task interference in vehicle control, hazard awareness and in-vehicle task performance. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Human Factors in Driving Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. Park City, UT. Wickens, C.D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 3(2), 159-177.